The 1991 Nasir Defection and its engendered Civilian Massacres, why ending impunity and a call for justice is not tribal hatred: A Response to Kuir Garang
BY: Manyok Chuol, OTTAWA, CANADA NOV. 11/2011, SSN; I do not want to be drawn into discussing new issues which were not in Kuir Garang’s original article, as doing so would be unwanted distraction from the issues he had raised particularly on the subject of the disastrous Nasir defection. As such I will limit my response to areas of significance to his original article and my response thereto. It’s important to equally acknowledge that Kuir Garang is a colleague and close friend of many years. He also happens to be just a telephone call away but the issues he raised in his initial article are of public domain and this is why we’re debating them publicly. I share in Kuir Garang’s desire for peace and harmony. In fact, what I’m doing here is neither to foment disharmony nor to whip up emotions as he has done with his insouciant treatment of issues in his first article. If my response is viewed as a threat to an imagined future reconciliation, then I beg to differ. (A) The Anya-Nya Movements and the SPLM/A In my rebuttal I countered what I perceived to be unjust characterization of SPLM/A accomplishments. So I gave a brief account of Anya II history; its genesis, challenges and weakness, to draw attention to their differences with SPLM/A. In that endeavor, I said “...disillusionment among Anya nya I soldiers who refused to be integrated into the Sudanese Armed Forces (SAF) because of doubts and general dissatisfaction with the Addis Ababa Peace Agreement”; so it’s solely in the context of dissatisfaction with the Addis Ababa Peace Agreement among the ranks and files of Anya-Nya I that the word ‘disillusioned’ came into that cited paragraph, though I now realize that I had left it vulnerable to manipulations. Nevertheless, I won’t reserve my criticism of these blatantly insidious efforts aimed at giving due credit where it’s least due. (B) The 1991 Nasir Defection and the 1994 Chukudum Convention In his first article, Mr. Kuir Garang forcefully asserted that the 1994 Chukudum Convention was held as a response to the 1991 Nasir Defection. Here is what he had asserted: If you can’t accept that SPLM national convention of 1994 in Chukudum was a direct consequence of 1991 split, then I will be afraid of your contribution to the development of South Sudan. And people should be wary of you as South Sudanese. In my response article, though I acknowledged that the split contributed to a body of reasons under which it was necessary to hold the Chukudum Convention I said it was not the main reason. Majorly, the 1994 Chukudum Convention was a delayed response to the winds of change that blew across Africa and the world in 1991, namely the fall of Mengistu and USSR and how such changes affected the SPLM/A in its particular conditions and context. Therefore, the Convention was a response to evolving needs for internal reforms inside the SPLM/A as it was similarly a response to matters facing it externally. Just to reiterate my reasoning: (1) Internal Demands inside the SPLM/A Having lost its bastion for logistical, military and political supports, the SPLM/A wanted to create responsive institutions – the structures that would address some of such challenges, thus a reasonably and realistically separate SPLM from SPLA was to be expected. Like most organizations that have to respond to evolving change, the success of the Chukudum Convention is a credit to the men and women of the SPLA, the SPLM/A leadership, the unwavering and enduring civil population. (2) External demands outside the SPLM/A Having been bogged down by the fiasco of the attacking Nasir defectors and Government forces that readily exploited the split, the SPLM/A could not have found the time to immediately take stock of the external events of 1991 under which it was still reeling from even in 1994. With the fall of Communism—the fall of USSR and Mengistu’s regime, the Movement had lost its key allies and whatever repertoire of ammos and other supporting logistics it had stockpiled in its controlled territories were exhausted fighting the Government of Sudan forces and the marauding Nasir forces. The Movement’s gains over the years were unfortunately reversed by these combined hostile forces. Having to pivot and seek new strategic alliances while being wary not to create confusion in its ranks and files at the same time, the Chukudum Convention was necessary to educate and communicate the importance of new strategic alliances. In pursuit of such Endeavors, the SRRA, for instance, had to be restructured to better respond to such evolving changes, not only in its humanitarian context but also as an important arm of the Movement. Such is a microcosmic summary of the environment facing the SPLM/A from 1991 leading to the Chukudum Convention of April 1994. Now, let’s look at the revisionists’ attempts at rewarding themselves the honor of giving credits to their undeserving friends and allies. Mr. Kuir Garang, for instance, below, he blames the SPLM/A for not immediately holding the 1994-like Chukudum Convention following the Nasir Defection of 1991 so to precisely give credits elsewhere: An organized movement would have convened a nation-wide convention immediately after the May of 1991 or several conventions between 1983 and 1991. That was a practical necessity Mr. Kuir Garang’s blame is falsely premised that the April 1994 Chukudum Convention was a direct response to 1991 Nasir defection. Of course, Mr. Kuir Garang would have a point had he not immediately contradicted himself by correctly stating that: The April 1994 Chukudum convention was meant to institutionalize, restructure and liberalize SPLM... Administrative structures were created and SPLA and SPLM were separated. Yes, the 1991 defection and collapse of Mengistu and Communism contributed, in part, to the holding of the Convention but not to the Convention’s specific achievements of institutionalization, restructuring, and liberalization of the SPLM/A as I said in my first article and reiterated above. In fact, I said the following in my first article: The 1994 Chukudum Convention brought together the grassroots leadership, the SPLM/A leadership and South Sudanese of all walks of life...The Chukudum Convention gave the Movement much needed opportunity to deliberate and to refocus objectives and seek new strategic alliances. Thus, the Chukudum Convention was not a direct response to the Nasir Defection and was similarly not a sudden realization by the SPLM/A to hold it as explained in this and earlier article. (C) Nasir Faction ‘Grievances’: the Demand for structures and democratization, how its leaders did and why their performances did not justify their breakaway The Nasir coup leaders broke away citing lack of structures, human rights, and democratization in the SPLM/A, just to mention few of their ‘grievances’; they created their own Movement which they ran to the ground. Dr. Lam Akol who it pains me to say Mr. Kuir Garang has shown that he would hardly disagree with has this to say in his book – the Nasir Declaration (p.250): In a Nairobi, ... INEC was unraveling...Arok Thon Arok resigned citing dictatorship...in a span of six months, nine members of INEC were already out...such was the extent of disillusion with Riek’s leadership which was characterized by incompetence, constant suspicion of colleagues and whimsical way of running the Movement And this is a book written to rationalize, legitimize, and promote the Nasir Defection of 1991. Evidently, the points they boisterously wanted to stand for in the SPLM/A before abandoning it were not their true intentions as they did not stand for or tolerate the same in their Movement, the ‘SPLM/A’-Nasir. Given this acknowledgement, the question is, was the defection then due to lack of structures as the Nasir leaders had imagined or was their alleged absence disguised position for wanting to wrest leadership? Dr. Lam Akol has documented Nasir leaders disrespect for structures; surprisingly, he accuses the existence of structures in their Movement as having accelerated their spectacular failures leading to (1) disintegration into SSIM/A and the hollowly but aptly named SPLM/A-United; and (2) signing rushed and unjust peace accords in forms of Riek’s “Khartoum Peace Agreement of April 1997” and Lam’s “Fashoda Peace Agreement of September 1997” and this is hardly debatable. These structures were ineptly run but Dr. Lam Akol conveniently blames their failure on his so-called ‘Gang of four’ Dinkas in the Interim National Executive Committee (INEC) of the Nasir’s ‘SPLM/A’ who were Mulana Dhol Achuil, Chol Deng Alak, Amon Wantok, and professor Isaac Cuir Riak; suggesting that they wrecked the movement from within it using its own structures. It’s to be noted the signing of the two unjust surrender peace accords followed an important sequence as Dr. Lam Akol dared Dr. Riek Machar in his letter to Dr. Riek Machar promising that it will be Dr. Riek to surrender first and him after – The Nasir Declaration (p.245, 303)! It’s astonishing how the order of surrender was conceived and hardened on instead of the goals of liberation struggle. In this, I give Dr. Lam Akol credit for once he kept his words! As we can see, the performance of the Nasir Faction appraised against its own ‘grievances’ was amateurish at best and horrifying at worst as evidenced by rampant killings in Mr. Kuir Garang’s ‘incomprehensible Bor Community’ and other Dinka areas of Panaruu and “Bahr El-Ghazal border attacks”, The Nasir Declaration (Lam Akol, p.195) . But Mr. Kuir Garang defends this record and has this to say: The Nasir trio had outlined grievances against Garang ‘one-man, dictatorial’ leadership and the external and internal pressure to define New Sudan (which Garang did in April1994 convention). It is to be noted, the so-called ‘one-man, dictatorial’ was borne out by necessity and experience, hence not metempirical. Of course the ‘one-man, dictatorial’ was a Nasir Faction’s jargon and aimed to deliberately diminish and denigrate the critical contributions of many resilient officers (commissioned and non-commissioned) under the late Dr. John Garang in the hope to plant more disquiet and defections. If the Nasir defectors extreme propaganda to which Mr. Kuir has seemingly buckled under its pressure were true, would we not then credit Dr. Garang for competently and single-handedly managing an insurrectionary movement as this is the contradictory message of Dr. Garang’s critics. That said, I point out these deserving points at the risk of being accused to be Dr. Garang “apologist” by narcissistic absolutists lot! But one has to analyze history in order to see these many inherent contradictions without boastfully and unjustifiably claim that Sudan/South Sudan history books aren’t available to our people wherever they may be. Further, if reading many volumes without analyzing and piecing together many but related parts of an event in history, then the narcissistic absolutists do not have credibility telling off others who have read many of the same books as they. Hence, reading is not the end but a means to understanding history and claiming having widely read alone therefore isn’t enough. (D) If The Massacres in Bor Were Planned Here again Mr. Kuir Garang rushes to the defense of the Nasir Faction’s mass murder of unarmed civilians against the victims of such heinous crimes: Note that the claim that the Nasir trio intentionally planned to kill innocent civilians doesn’t deserve any response. What deserves a response is that people died because of the consequences (misunderstanding by some local Nuer) of trio’s intentions. It’s false and laughable to suggest that the mass murder of unarmed civilians in Bor (Twi, Gok, Nyarweng, Athooc, and Hol) was not planned. Here is Dr. Riek Machar (Sennar) message (001/9/91) to all units quoting point (2) in Dr. Lam Akol’s book: The Nasir Declaration (p.294): The facts on the ground show that should John Garang choose to resist, he will be condemning his clan to total annihilation. They are the only people who might fight for John Garang. Nobody else in Upper Nile, Bahr el-Ghazal and Equatoria will fight to defend Garang’s repressive and oppressive dictatorship. That is a direct quote from the ‘liberator’s’ book by another ‘liberator’. This is, therefore, in line with Mr. Kuir Garang’s advice to read from the ‘liberators’. The Honorable Dr. Peter Adwok Nyaba who too was part of Nasir Faction’s leadership says it this way: In September 1991 when Ayod, Waat, and Akobo came under his control, Riek Machar ordered a large contingent of Nasir troops, elements of Anya –Nya Two from Deleib Hills and heavily armed Nuer civilians—Jiech Mabor (white army) mainly Lou and Gawer—to invade Bor and Kongor Districts. In the thinking of Dr. Riek Machar, Garang could be defeated either by destroying his home area or destroying his SPLA troops. Initially, the involvement of armed civilians was due to the fact that he did not have enough forces. He therefore intended to wet the appetite of his armed civilians for wealth of Dinka cattle, women, and child captives Again, these are not my words and so the denial that the Nasir trio did not intentionally plan to kill innocent civilians no longer has credibility; it’s abhorrent and actually deserved Kuir’s response and directed at the trio of Dr. Lam Akol, Dr. Riek Machar and CDR. Gordon Koang, not against me. Mr. Kuir Garang has this to say: There is no incident in history that can never have a better side except RAPE! I’m sure callously killing innocent unarmed civilians has no better side either and so are many other crimes. Rapes on rampant scale were carried out in Bor by the marauding Nasir forces. The Nasir forces equally abducted women and children and laying to waste any loots they could not take to Nuerland. In their senseless invasion of Bor Dinka villages, Honorable Dr. Peter Adwok Nyaba observation was thus: In the process, the merciless tribal marauders in hundreds of thousands seized cattle, children and women, many of which were taken as war booty. Dr. Lam Akol in his book, the Nasir Declaration, shamelessly condones this barbarism by saying it as follows (p.176): “...many officers spend the night there with their wives or local girl friends “ Dr. Lam Akol was attempting to rationalize their defeat by the SPLA in what he calls “the Kongor incident” blaming their trouncing on lagged security owing to, again, “many officers spend the night there with their wives or local girl friends”. It’s to be noted that these “wives” and “local girl friends” that Lam Akol refers to were the victims of abduction by the lawless and “merciless tribal marauders”. Mr. Kuir Garang has this truly terrifying anecdotal story to dismiss those “people lamenting the split”: Poktap fell to Nasir forces after weeks of fighting. It fell into Riek’s soldier’ controls when I was at Kiir of Adhiok. I thought the world was ending then. We walked on foot and settled at Malek displaced camp north of Mading (now call Bor Town) until we were forced to cross the river. Nasir soldiers shot at us as we lodged on the Nile bank just on the other side of the Nile; just across from Malek. When the Nasir forces were chased away by SPLA, (which Lam wrongfully calls withdrawal in his book) we came to Malek the same day and found dead bodies still on the ground. I too lost relatives in the process This is a great story of survival, and one that we as Bor Community, and especially his friends such as myself are truly grateful for his lucky survival. It saddens me to think that I could not have had my friend and colleague Mr. Kuir Garang and would have been equally a great loss to not have someone of Kuir’s intellect in our community. Sadly, we have to content with knowing that our community lost many kuirs and we are urged that we must be grateful and happy for the kuirs we have as if this was a natural choice we have had to make! But I reject Mr. Kuir Garang advice because our “lamenting” is justified; the Nasir leaders must be remorseful and apologize for senselessly killing other innocent and unarmed potential kuirs: yes intelligent, forgiving and forgetful for in them they would probably have had a few of them who would be ready to cheer the Nasir leaders on falsely believing that the defection majorly ‘contributed’ to the holding of the 1994 Chukudum Convention implying the defection was beneficial. While Mr. Kuir Garang promises to show scars, a lot of people still are nursing wounds inflicted callously on them by the merciless marauding Nasir forces and genuine healing will be elusive unless genuine process is conceived and headed by former leaders of the Nasir Faction, primarily Dr. Riek Machar and Dr. Lam Akol. They should apologize, and sincerely, I must add, and lead our people across tribal divides onto the path to forgiveness and reconciliation. This is necessary and within their grasp and it’s important they show leadership now which they never had. In closing, if my good colleague and friend were really interested in peace, Mr. Kuir Garang would be writing urging his political mentors to apologize for deliberately planning and committing crimes against unarmed innocent civilians. Mr. Kuir Garang may be effective in persuading Dr. Lam Akol and Dr. Riek Machar to accept culpability and ask for forgiveness. Doing this goes a long way to bring about true reconciliation and harmony. It’s fair to point out that Dr. Riek Machar has half-heartedly apologized wherein Lam Akol has not because his enablers are telling him to not apologize for his role in such heinous crimes. Peaceful coexistence is a collective responsibility and not something to be used to further burden those to whom egregious crimes have been committed against. Talking about these crimes committed is in fact good and helps the process of healing. Case in point is alleged Riek Machar’s apology which if it weren’t half-hearted would lead to genuine process of forgiveness and reconciliation. It would always tantamount to double standard to tell the victims of viciously and wilfully committed felonies to shut up to allow some imagined healing to surface divinely; doing so always benefits the perpetrators of such heinous crimes and as such is counterproductive. Written by: Manyok Chuol, Ottawa, Canada Here is Kuir Garang’s First Aritcle And here is my response thereto Then Kuir Garang’s response to my response COMMENTS, PLEASE CLICK HERE Disclaimer: The views expressed above are solely those of the author(s) and do not represent those of the website. -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "South Sudan Info - The Kob" group. To post to this group, send email to [email protected]. To unsubscribe from this group, send email to [email protected]. For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/SouthSudanKob?hl=en.
